NJ Supreme Court: Gays have same rights as Heterosexuals

[mickeyfan2]

OT question:

Assumptions: NJ legislature passes civil unions or gay marriage

You and your partner work in a border state that does not recognize the union/marriage. So you decide to move to NJ and get "married". Does the employer have to grant you the health etc benefits if their state does not recognize your union/marriage. My guess is no.

 

[cardaway]

OT question:

Assumptions: NJ legislature passes civil unions or gay marriage

You and your partner work in a border state that does not recognize the union/marriage. So you decide to move to NJ and get "married". Does the employer have to grant you the health etc benefits if their state does not recognize your union/marriage. My guess is no.

Which is why IMO this should not be at the state level.

I'm glad they took this step, but given what was just posted above, and that it's still separate but equal, It's far from what is really needed IMO.

 

[smartestnumber5]

OT question:

Assumptions: NJ legislature passes civil unions or gay marriage

You and your partner work in a border state that does not recognize the union/marriage. So you decide to move to NJ and get "married". Does the employer have to grant you the health etc benefits if their state does not recognize your union/marriage. My guess is no.

I'm pretty sure you're right. The Defense of Marriage Act says that a state need not recognize a marriage between people of the same sex, even if the marriage occurred legally in another state in the U.S.

 

[aztecgoods]

In all seriousness, I hate to burst all ya'll's bubble but from what I just heard on the radio, sounds like all the NJ Ct. did was kick the ball back to the legislature, stating that it is just up to the Leg to determine. Doesn't sound like they did anything to make marriage/civil unions legal. But I admit I have not read the opinion of the court, just heard it on the radio.

 

[Geoff_M]

(Somewhere, right now, Karl Rove is doing the "happy dance".)

 

[smartestnumber5]

In all seriousness, I hate to burst all ya'll's bubble but from what I just heard on the radio, sounds like all the NJ Ct. did was kick the ball back to the legislature, stating that it is just up to the Leg to determine. Doesn't sound like they did anything to make marriage/civil unions legal. But I admit I have not read the opinion of the court, just heard it on the radio.

The radio people need to read the decision (or a newspaper summary). The court ordered the legislature to either change the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples OR set up a structure for civil unions which include ALL the rights of marriage.

Of course, there is a sense in which the ball is back in the legislature's hands--except it's a different ball! The old ball came with three options: do nothing, allow civil unions, allow same-sex marriage. The new ball doesn't allow the first option.

 

[aztecgoods]

The radio people need to read the decision (or a newspaper summary). The court ordered the legislature to either change the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples OR set up a structure for civil unions which include ALL the rights of marriage.

Of course, there is a sense in which the ball is back in the legislature's hands--except it's a different ball! The old ball came with three options: do nothing, allow civil unions, allow same-sex marriage. The new ball doesn't allow the first option.

But that's not the equivalent of Gay marriage now being legal in NJ. It may be a step in that direction, but I just think congrats are a little premature.

 

[smartestnumber5]

And yet some states have given their voters the chance to vote on similar issues and the majority said no... is that not speaking for the people they govern when the people they govern are given the chance to choose?

Yes, and all 11 of those states now have such laws. I don't think anyone was complaining about the government acting against the majority's desires in those cases. (Although, there is controversy about how the ballot proposition in Michigan has been used to try to take away domestic partner health benefits from same-sex couples--a result which the promoters of the prop specifically denied would occur before the election--since it's not clear that the majority of people would have voted to take away health benefits. But that's another story.)

I thought the other poster's point was that in numerous states (Illinois is one I would never have guessed) people overwhelmingly favor civil unions for same-sex couples--and yet the legislatures in many of these states have not done anything in this direction. In fact, in New Jersey, 50% of people favor same-sex marriage with only 44% opposing it. Thus, if the legislators were listening to the people in these states, there would have been no need for a court case at all! (And if in response to this decision, the legislature sets up only civil unions, it seems that would be going against the will of New Jersey's citizens.)

 

[LukenDC]

And yet some states have given their voters the chance to vote on similar issues and the majority said no... is that not speaking for the people they govern when the people they govern are given the chance to choose?

If we allowed the people to rule on the rights of minority groups, I am 100% positive that some states would still have racial segregation, widespread limits on women's rights, and limits on religious freedom. Populism is not the way to go.

 

[LukenDC]

(Somewhere, right now, Karl Rove is doing the "happy dance".)

Yes, it will give him the opportunity to demonize innocent people for political gain. He is truly an evil man.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

Personally, I don't think human rights issues should depend on popular vote. I suspect that in some states, civil rights measures for African-Americans would have gotten less than a majority of the popular vote at the time. But it was important to do.

Teresa

 

[magicmato]

Yes, and all 11 of those states now have such laws. I don't think anyone was complaining about the government acting against the majority's desires in those cases. (Although, there is controversy about how the ballot proposition in Michigan has been used to try to take away domestic partner health benefits from same-sex couples--a result which the promoters of the prop specifically denied would occur before the election--since it's not clear that the majority of people would have voted to take away health benefits. But that's another story.)

I thought the other poster's point was that in numerous states (Illinois is one I would never have guessed) people overwhelmingly favor civil unions for same-sex couples--and yet the legislatures in many of these states have not done anything in this direction. In fact, in New Jersey, 50% of people favor same-sex marriage with only 44% opposing it. Thus, if the legislators were listening to the people in these states, there would have been no need for a court case at all! (And if in response to this decision, the legislature sets up only civil unions, it seems that would be going against the will of New Jersey's citizens.)

Exactly! Thank you.

 

[NewJersey]

Isn't this the perfect example of checks and balances?


And the court has given the legislature 180 days to legalize gay marriage or some form of civil unions.

 

[cardaway]

Personally, I don't think human rights issues should depend on popular vote. I suspect that in some states, civil rights measures for African-Americans would have gotten less than a majority of the popular vote at the time. But it was important to do.

ITA

 

[NewJersey]

Oh and a poll over the summer had support for gay marriage at 53% and 65% for civil unions, so it seems that at the very least there's no tidal surge of negativity towards gay marriage in NJ.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Personally, I don't think human rights issues should depend on popular vote. I suspect that in some states, civil rights measures for African-Americans would have gotten less than a majority of the popular vote at the time. But it was important to do.

Teresa

ABSOLUTELY and thank you for sayin' so

 

[dcentity2000]

Rich::

 

[basas]

And yet some states have given their voters the chance to vote on similar issues and the majority said no... is that not speaking for the people they govern when the people they govern are given the chance to choose?

And 8 more states will be making such votes to ban gay marriage in the coming elections. It is expected it will pass in nearly every one.

 

[Fitswimmer]

So I guess the question is, if the NJ legislature brings the same rights to civil unions that exist for marriage-is that the end or is there still a fight? From what I understand, the argument up until now has been that civil unions did not carry the same rights to benefits and other privileges as marriage does. From how I read the decision, the Legislature has a middle ground. They can mirror marriage rights without granting marriage. Sounds like a safety net for politicians that might be afraid of losing votes.

 

[eclectics]

Oh and a poll over the summer had support for gay marriage at 53% and 65% for civil unions, so it seems that at the very least there's no tidal surge of negativity towards gay marriage in NJ.

The snowball has very slowly started down the hill. It's going to hit a lot of bumps on the way down but should reach the bottom hopefully sooner than 40 years. I'm gonna be optimistic and guess 25 or so. Maybe not called "marriage" but standardized federal gay unions with all the trimmings will be legal in this country some day.